Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Struggling Artist at 86

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#31

Post by replicatorblog »

klodolph wrote: post #13
megaman22 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, Rothkos... nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. And I was engaged to an artist that loved him...

If you have not seen a Rothko in person, you may want to postpone judgment a bit. I've known a few people who have independently told me that they didn't get Rothko until they went to a museum with his work.

Rothko is the visual art's embodiment of the emperor's new clothes. I've seen Rothkos up close and personal. They're fuzzy rectangles painted by a guy who couldn't draw. They're interesting cultural artifacts, but as an art school graduate, I hate when the smart set elevates mediocre artwork to make the unenlightened feel dumb.

Pollock's paintings at least have a sense of dynamism and there are interesting interactions in the paint. DeKooning has a sense of dynamism, but so did most classical artists with a bunch of other benefits to boot. Frankenthaler/Kline/Twombly all had one move they repeated for decades. Rauschenberg and Johns predicted a lot of modern graphic design, but you'll find more interesting visuals in an issue of Lucky Peach. Diebenkorn made an attempt to add the rudiments of representation.

Modern art is endlessly interesting. There are personal dramas, changes in cultural norms, and financial stories that are much more compelling than anything on the canvas. AbEx stuff is fine, but you'll find equally compelling designs on bedding at Target.

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#32

Post by egypturnash »

mattbierner wrote: post #27

Wish there was a better proxy for the value of an artist than what their works sell for. For example, how many people did this guy influence, how did his work change art or how people understand the world? Neither was really discussed in the article

His day job was "working as a freelance graphic designer creating logos, packaging and advertising for brands like Pond’s cold cream and Bufferin." So he may have anonymously influenced a ton of people to buy one brand of painkiller or another.

He also lived in Cleveland from about 1952-1961, which means there's a not insignificant chance he may have done work for American Greetings. Which means that maybe his art was on some number of cards that began or ended a relationship. That's an influence, I think? Probably an anonymous one, though.

It sounds like pretty much everything he's drawn or painted for himself is still in his apartment. So most of it hasn't had any chance to influence anyone or their understanding of the world. This may change now that he has people in the NYC gallery scene becoming interested in his work as a new artist to promote as worth investing in. Or it may not; the few pieces of his work shown in the article didn't strike me as saying anything that hasn't already been said a thousand times by the "New York School" of 50s/60s abstract expressionists that he exhibited next to back then. YMMV, abstract expressionism ain't my thing in general.

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#33

Post by InternetUser »

crispinb wrote: post #6
nyc111 wrote: post #2

Compare him to Picasso. Picasso never said "I had to pay the rent." He never considered earning money with anything other than painting. When he had no money he lived in friends' apartments. He faced and accepted poverty and hunger. Picasso did not compromise. Same with Van Gogh. Paintings on their own have no value. Buyers pay for the life story of the painters. The more heroic is your life the more expensive your p…

The idea that there is some One True Path to becoming an Artist (as if either path or role were a consequence of universal natural law) is myth-making at its most obtuse. Even a cursory glance at art history will show the heroic myth is anything but universal. There are tortured artists yet others who are at the peak of mental health. There are poor artists, rich ones, uncompromising artists, artists who'll sell thei…

As a corollary, is there no such thing as 'art'? Are you someone who would you say "anything can be art"?

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#34

Post by InternetUser »

briandear wrote: post #11
nyc111 wrote: post #2

Compare him to Picasso. Picasso never said "I had to pay the rent." He never considered earning money with anything other than painting. When he had no money he lived in friends' apartments. He faced and accepted poverty and hunger. Picasso did not compromise. Same with Van Gogh. Paintings on their own have no value. Buyers pay for the life story of the painters. The more heroic is your life the more expensive your p…

Actually Van Gogh didn’t create a myth either— that cake much later. But I still agree with your points..

"cake," you say? https://www.google.com/search?q=Van+Gogh+cake&rlz=1C1CHMO_en...

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#35

Post by InternetUser »

mattbierner wrote: post #27

Wish there was a better proxy for the value of an artist than what their works sell for. For example, how many people did this guy influence, how did his work change art or how people understand the world? Neither was really discussed in the article

> For example, how many people did this guy influence

The fantastic site WikiArt includes influences, as seen here:

https://www.wikiart.org/en/gustav-klimt

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#37

Post by InternetUser »

fermienrico wrote: post #20
megaman22 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, Rothkos... nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. And I was engaged to an artist that loved him...

Rothko's paintings are ideas just like Duchamp, Kandinsky, Richter and Pollock. There are two kinds of people that criticize them: - First kind, the ones that criticize and challenge their ideas. Not the process, not the method, not the work itself. Examples - David Sylvester and Michael Peppiatt who criticized Francis Bacon [0]. Those were constructive, extremely interesting encounters that challenge artist's notion…

That first video is awesome, thank you! As for the second type of postmodern-art-hater you quote, do you ever think that someone can be making a valid point about the valuelessness and meaninglessness of someone's creations that have been chosen by another person to be displayed in a gallery? Is everyone who draws or paints a picture an artist? I myself see much of postmodern art as "meta-art," or a work of "art commentary," a statement about what people can be made to see as "art" (such as: excrement on a floor, a pile of rocks, or a piece of paper that says "This is art") but it's not art. I'd say that Duchamp's urinal is meta-art.

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#38

Post by dang »

InternetUser wrote: post #36
dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Would you have said the same if his comment was "It's a wonder he's still struggling, his art is very good."

Not necessarily. Empty positive comments aren't as bad: https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html.

It would be different if we got to a point where empty positive comments were the main threat to quality on HN, but we're far from that.

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#39

Post by yesenadam »

claudiulodro wrote: post #7

> “Harry’s never been a salesman,” said Mary Bertschmann, his wife of more than 50 years. “He didn’t get his art out there for them to see.” Like pretty much everything in life, it all comes back to marketing. In order for people to want a specific artist's art they have to know the artist exists and they have to be familiar with his work. The more people that know, the more people will want the art, and the more val…

This seems close to assuming that financial value is ultimately the only value of art.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

Re: The Struggling Artist at 86

#40

Post by yesenadam »

Alex3917 wrote: post #12
megaman22 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God, Rothkos... nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. And I was engaged to an artist that loved him...

> nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. I mean he's arguably the best painter of all time, because while everyone else was trying to win the game of showing off how good they were at painting, he was just trying to make something that looked good on people's walls.

If you're serious (not sure), that would make him arguably the best painter of his time and place. But all time? Let's hear an argument for that. (I don't say, a good one)
Post reply on HN